It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Capability of the U.S. Army

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 02:03 AM
link   
The biggest advantage that the US military has is the US's economy, ie money. The US spends way way way more on military spending than any other country in the world.

Since they have so much money to spend they can buy lots of the best equipment and research new stuff. Russia has developed some amazing jets and weapons, but they can't afford to make and utilize them on the same scale as the US.

It took a lot of money to get the US army to what it is now.

As the Chinese economy starts to ramp up, things could get a little scary.




posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 02:46 AM
link   
British soldiers were in a jeep in the First Gulf War, (or it may have been a tank) with a British Flag clearly flying... I dont know the background of the mission, etc.
But an American a-10, despite radio contact etc, goes and shoots it up and kills all on board.

your technology also caused the friend or foe identification failure when one of our aircraft were blown up by a patriot missile.

Your 'smart' bombs bombed a kurdish convoy with British and American special forces and journalists on.

Technology failures or Human error? Americans are too stupid to go to war.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by greenkoolaid
The biggest advantage that the US military has is the US's economy, ie money. The US spends way way way more on military spending than any other country in the world.

Since they have so much money to spend they can buy lots of the best equipment and research new stuff. Russia has developed some amazing jets and weapons, but they can't afford to make and utilize them on the same scale as the US.

It took a lot of money to get the US army to what it is now.

As the Chinese economy starts to ramp up, things could get a little scary.



Why scary? Because we wont have one country dictating what the entire world must do?
Because someone will actually have the guts to stand up to them and tell them, in short, 'No'?



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 03:03 AM
link   
So I guess you fell for the "US weapons are infallible" myth. War is confusing. Did the jeep stray into an A-10 kill box? I bet they did. Those areas were designated as all inside are unfriendly. Does the patriot system have flaws? Yes! Did the United States and Britian just conquer a nation sustaining amazingly low casualties? Yes.

I'm sorry that you fell for the myth. American 'smart bombs' resulted in VERY few civilian casualties. This is undeniable.

American's are too stupid to go to war? Hardly.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Umm, i dont think you have any rights to claim that you just conquered Iraq!

First, most of the Iraqi soldiers surrendered before and after you got there

Secondly, the army was weak and it was small.

Thirdly, you put like 200000 troops against 5000 (i think)

so therefore it is impossible to state that you guys had taen over Iraq. I think that the US is trying to break away from the UN with that kind of action. Its trying to do like what Germany was trying to do witht he league of nations.

Either way, the US just showoff too much!LOLZ!



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Your Smart bombs need to be guided by Smart Operators. They arent.
I dont know if you know the civilian casualties, but up to a million Iraqis died.

A TV Program reflecting on the Iraq war showed a man whose family was the victim of the resturant bombing where they thought Saddam Hussain was. They hit a family house and killed all of his family, wife, and like 4 children.

Look at your own family and imagine losing them to 'smart technology'.


EDIT: They arent f**king with you because they want Saddam back, but they are f**king with you because they want you out. You may have kicked out an oppressive dictator, but you have left the people with destroyed families, etc

[Edited on 23-2-2004 by browha]



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Revenge,

Are American and British troops currently in Iraq? I'd say Iraq was pretty well conquored.

I never said that smart weapons worked perfectly all the time. In fact I believe I said the opposite. I never said Iraqi civilians didn't die, I simply stated that fewer died than in past wars. I saw an interview on the news several weeks ago where an Iraqi woman stated that she was able to continue to shop during the bombing because she wasn't afraid of a bomb hitting the market. She said that she just stayed away from government buildings. I know that this is just one woman, but the guided bombs are much better than the old drop and pray it hits bombs of WWII, Korean war, Vietnam.

By the way, have you ever met an American soldier? Or better yet, an American SF soldier. Some soldiers ARE dumb, but those aren't the ones lighting up the targets.

Send me a link on the civilian deaths. I hadn't heard they were that high. Thanks.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 03:20 AM
link   
You might think that the Brits and USA have conquered Iraq but they haven't. If they had then there would be no resistance at all which means that the people are now fighting. That is why i love many of the middle eastern countries. After there armies lget wiped out, the people step in and they try to defend their country. They die for their land they dont die because its fun or because of resources such as oil. They die for a worthy cause.

There is no way that the Brits and USA will ever conquer Iraq because then the UN troops will step in and push out the USA and Brits because your objective was to just liberate the people of Iraq, not stay inside their country for long and not to take their oil.......



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 03:41 AM
link   
I'll look for a link for casualties but I think you'll find that the actual number is extremely surpressed..
The problem is that Iraq IS conquered, that's why you're getting shot at.

If the men lasing the targets are so bright why are there so many cases of FF or 'blue-on-blue' and why do so many civilians die in the bombings?



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Attacks against soldiers are dropping off while attacks against Iraqi police are increasing. Perhaps conquored was a poor choice of words. The US defeated the Iraqi Army and is now in the process of rebuilding the nation. I don't think the US is after the oil, but it is convenient that the bases in Saudi are closing and now there are American bases in Iraq.

And once again, fratricide is a part of war. It happens to all nations. I've known some SF and they were pretty bright, they have to be. War is confusing and fratricide happens.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Funnily enough, no British incidents of blue-on-blue, nor accidental british bombing of civilians...



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Are you sure of this? What role did the RAF play in the war? Alot of fratricide happens in close air support missions.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 04:25 AM
link   
A quick seach yielded this .

Its an article about British v. British friendly fire. If you want I'll look for more incidents or you can accept that friendly fire happens in war.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I accept that FF happens, I always have.
Just that the Americans yield unusually high amounts of FF situations.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 09:42 AM
link   
The high percentage was due to the role that the US played in the war versus the role the British played. US A-10's provided the vast majority of close air support, not british planes. It is in close air support where most of the mistakes are made. All countries have fratricide. If you want to compare the amount committed by the US you have to take into account the size of the US force compared to the British force and the respective roles they played.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 10:03 AM
link   
k im expectiong to get flamed for this but i really coudlent give a @#%%



the us military.... most advanced in the world.. wouldent doubt it for 1 second

the us military .... best army in the world... wouldent doubt it for 1 second

but do you know why.....

do your history look at the positions your leaders have put your country in ... your only number one because of lie's deceit and death.

only country in the world that spends a absolutely retarted ammount of money on its military while neglecting area's like healthcare and education.. america has been paranoied since the end of ww2 and the bigginning of the cold war.. u nation is thirsty for war... again look at history
its what u guys are good at building weapons selling weapons blowing weapons up



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 10:04 AM
link   
You make some fair points in the post, especially at the tail of it, but I strongly disagree with it being the best. My opinion.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 04:03 PM
link   
well one thing is not as good in the us army.
If they got an order they do it blind because its an order
but in the netherlands the militairy personal first looks and speak to each other what the best way it is to do it.
You can see it in Iraq no problems with attacks on dutch soldiers and in afghanistan no problems.
dutch soldiers are between the people they listen to the people and speek with them to see where there are problems.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Yes I suppose that is a fair point...
The British operate 'Hearts and Minds' programmes very well in my opinion, as does the US.
However I think the US are the most susceptible because they have such a large number of troops in the area.
Japan and Italy have had bombings in Iraq, so I dont think this is the only reason..
As well, the US and UK were the people who invaded Iraq in the first place, and I THINK that they are mainly viewed as the conquerers, not the Japanese, etc.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by browha

No one here can accuractely imagine a million people, and we dont get a comprehension of how many dead that is;


I can imagine a million dead people, because I was at a party in Berlin in '96 with a million people.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join